Socialism

[vern_humphrey]

Two problems with socialism.

1. Is state sanctioned stealing.
2. Is in many cases Statolatry. Puting the State in God’s place, making charity a legal obligation instead of moral duty. Read Nietzche, Also Sprach Zarathuster, the New Idol chapter, to get a idea of the Statolatry involved in socialism. As Hegel and Nieztche predicted, the welfare state in Europe and Canada is one of the main culprits of the decadence of the Church.
3. Is state sanctioned violence. All socialism need some form of coertion. The more the merrier. For example the proabortion ideology is linked to socialsm. So the mass murder of the Nazis and Communist.
   BTW Bush is fairly socialist.

You are exactly right about statolatry. A communist state must be all powerful. It cannot tolerate another power in competition – that’s why the left has such a push on things like gay marriage, abortion, and so on – they are really attacks on the Catholic Church

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Two problems with socialism.

1. Is state sanctioned stealing.

Can you back this up with a quote from a papal encyclical, or the catechism? Even the mosaic law required that 10% of the harvest be reserved for the poor, and redistributed the land every 50 years.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Can you back this up with a quote from a papal encyclical, or the catechism? Even the mosaic law required that 10% of the harvest be reserved for the poor, and redistributed the land every 50 years.

The Church makes no statement to which economic system is superior or just. It is left to the prudential judgment of each political entity so long as that political entity recieves its powers from the people and it is excercised with proper respect for the dignity of individuals.

It is the prudential judgement of inthecloud that it “state sanctioned theft”. It is mine as well.

Your reference to Mosaic law is improper because at that time the state and religion were one entity, fully unified. Such is not the case in the United States. The Vatican is the only nation-state in which the two are unified.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Can you back this up with a quote from a papal encyclical, or the catechism? Even the mosaic law required that 10% of the harvest be reserved for the poor, and redistributed the land every 50 years.

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

vern_humphrey:
What you won’t be told is that only the parts that relate to communism are mandatory and the part about absolute capitalism being unacceptable is “prudential” meaning that we can ignore it if it goes against our political ideology.

At least by some in these parts.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The Church makes no statement to which economic system is superior or just. It is left to the prudential judgment of each political entity so long as that political entity recieves its powers from the people and it is excercised with proper respect for the dignity of individuals.

It is the prudential judgement of inthecloud that it “state sanctioned theft”. It is mine as well.

But you and ‘inthecloud’ aren’t political entities. And if you’re saying that the government doesn’t have the right to redistribute wealth, aren’t you disagreeing with the Church, which leaves these questions to 'the prudential judgement of each political entity"?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

2425 The Church has rejected the **totalitarian **and **atheistic **ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” …

Oh, so the Church has only rejected totalitarianism and athiesm in Marxism, not the rest of it. Thanks, that’s what I was wondering.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What you won’t be told is that only the parts that relate to communism are mandatory and the part about absolute capitalism being unacceptable is “prudential” meaning that we can ignore it if it goes against our political ideology.

At least by some in these parts.

I don’t know anybody who espouses “absolute capitalism” (whatever that means.)

Capitalism, unlike Communism and Socialism, is not a political ideology. It is best defined as “private ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution for profit in a competitive system.”

To the extent there is a political philosophy of capitalism it is merely that the role state should be to prevent the strong from destroying the competitive aspects of the system, to regulate things like weights and measures, enforce contracts and so on.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Oh, so it has only rejected totalitarianism and athiesm in marxism, not the rest of it. Thanks, that’s what I was wondering.

And, as I have explained, totalitarianism and atheism are inhent in Marxism (name a Marxist country that is not a totalitarian dictatorship.)

The reason all communist nations are totalitarian and athiest is that first of all, the state must have all power (how will they take people’s property if they are not all-powerful?) And, of course, the state cannot tolerate a competing power – such as the Catholic Church – to which people look for moral guidance.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It is left to the prudential judgment of each political entity so long as that political entity recieves its powers from the people and it is excercised with proper respect for the dignity of individuals.

Since when does the Church teach that all governments have to receive their power ‘from the people’? I’d like to see a quote. I’m starting to think you’re just making it up.

 

[Orionthehunter]

But you and ‘inthecloud’ aren’t political entities. And if you’re saying that the government doesn’t have the right to redistribute wealth, aren’t you disagreeing with the Church, which leaves these questions to 'the prudential judgement of each political entity"?

But as citizens of our political entity (assuming it respects the rights and dignity of individuals) we determine the rights and powers of our government. Thus, via our votes, we are free to oppose redistributionist policies in any legitimate way we deem appropriate.

Furthermore, as vern humphrey has pointed out, 52% of all wage earners now pay federal income taxes. A strong case can be made that the government is dangerously close to becoming an instrument of theft for the benefit of others.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Since when does the Church teach that all governments have to receive their power ‘from the people’? I’d like to see a quote. I’m starting to think you’re just making it up.

In case you missed it, he was quoting from a secuilar document – one of the best ever written on the theory of government.

Do you know which document that was?

 

[paradoxy]

I’d like someone to tell me why they believe a welfare system such as exists in Scandinavian countries is inherently evil. It is not ideologically Marxist, or atheist, but instead relies on solidarity and respect for human dignity.

What is wrong with women getting long maternity leave and the jobless not starving and those with less money not suffering or having their children suffer treatable medical conditions because they can’t afford medical help or everyone having access to a good education?

It could be a mentality thing, but people there don’t generally feel ripped off because they pay taxes so everyone has some basic human care. True, they haven’t financed a war in a looong time…

Are Scandinavians bad?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I don’t know anybody who espouses “absolute capitalism” (whatever that means.)

Capitalism, unlike Communism and Socialism, is not a political ideology. It is best defined as “private ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution for profit in a competitive system.”

To the extent there is a political philosophy of capitalism it is merely that the role state should be to prevent the strong from destroying the competitive aspects of the system, to regulate things like weights and measures, enforce contracts and so on.

I define absolute capitalism to means opposition to regulation on business that equalize the power relationship between business and labor…

 

[Orionthehunter]

Since when does the Church teach that all governments have to receive their power ‘from the people’? I’d like to see a quote. I’m starting to think you’re just making it up.

If you want to have a civil dialogue, we can have it. You could have just asked me to support my statement. It was unnecessary to make the accusation that I’m making it up.

From the Catechism: There is much more than these that summarize this principle but here are a few.

1881 Each community is defined by its purpose and consequently obeys specific rules; but “the human person . . . is and ought to be the principle, the subject and the end of all social institutions.” (Gaudium et spes)

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.” (Centisimus annus)

(Orion’s comment- This principle of subsidiarity is a critical principle. Detailed study of this principle will explain government power can’t usurp any rights given to the individual or the family (domestic Church) by God or impair the individuals capacity to realize his or his families potential as called by God. Ultimately, in practical matters, these limits on government then lead to only one conclusion- government can only do what the people allow and empower the government to do)

1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

1888 It is necessary, then, to appeal to the spiritual and moral capacities of the human person and to the permanent need for his inner conversion, so as to obtain social changes that will really serve him. The acknowledged priority of the conversion of heart in no way eliminates but on the contrary imposes the obligation of bringing the appropriate remedies to institutions and living conditions when they are an inducement to sin, so that they conform to the norms of justice and advance the good rather than hinder it. (Lumen Gentium)

(Orion’s comment: This section speaks to true social change occurs with my change and your change. Use of a gun to inflict/force/coerce an end without a internal change does not effect what is referenced below)

1886
Society is essential to the fulfillment of the human vocation. To attain this aim, respect must be accorded to the just hierarchy of values, which “subordinates physical and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones:” (centesimus annus)

Human society must primarily be considered something pertaining to the spiritual. Through it, in the bright light of truth, men should share their knowledge, be able to exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations, be inspired to seek spiritual values; mutually derive genuine pleasure from the beautiful, of whatever order it be; always be readily disposed to pass on to others the best of their own cultural heritage; and eagerly strive to make their own the spiritual achievements of others. These benefits not only influence, but at the same time give aim and scope to all that has bearing on cultural expressions, economic, and social institutions, political movements and forms, laws, and all other structures by which society is outwardly established and constantly developed. (Pope John XXIII)

 

[Peregrino]

I’d like someone to tell me why they believe a welfare system such as exists in Scandinavian countries is inherently evil. It is not ideologically Marxist, or atheist, but instead relies on solidarity and respect for human dignity.

What is wrong with women getting long maternity leave and the jobless not starving and those with less money not suffering or having their children suffer treatable medical conditions because they can’t afford medical help or everyone having access to a good education?

It could be a mentality thing, but people there don’t generally feel ripped off because they pay taxes so everyone has some basic human care. True, they haven’t financed a war in a looong time…

Are Scandinavians bad?

You are on the money here. It definitely is a mentality thing and is inherently selfish. Many like to label the idea of helping others as Marxist or Socialist purely for ideological reasons. We teach our kids to share. Collectively within our families we help those in need without expectation of return. These are values which most of us inculcate in our kids. It is purely a mindset that produces the knee-jerk reaction that social programs like those in Scandinavian countries are bad. The “enlightened” self-interest that drives the classical capitalist market is so much more instinctive (base?) than the selflessness and collectiveness that we try to teach our kids within our families.

 

[Orionthehunter]

You are on the money here. It definitely is a mentality thing and is inherently selfish. Many like to label the idea of helping others as Marxist or Socialist purely for ideological reasons. We teach our kids to share. Collectively within our families we help those in need without expectation of return. These are values which most of us inculcate in our kids. It is purely a mindset that produces the knee-jerk reaction that social programs like those in Scandinavian countries are bad. The “enlightened” self-interest that drives the classical capitalist market is so much more instinctive (base?) than the selflessness and collectiveness that we try to teach our kids within our families.

It is a mentality thing but one that the Church acknowledges is best left to the prudential judgment of individuals and families. My prudential judgment is that an overly collective society deprives me of my God-given sovriegnty over myself, family and local community.

You just couldn’t resist the quotation around enlightenment and charge of being “base” to claim some type of self-righteousness or superiority (another example of a lack of charity). Just because one asserts his sovriegnty over himself, family and local community does not necessarily mean selfishness. It means one wants to retain to a greater degree how he expresses his Christian call to his neighbors, how he teaches his family Christian values (the domestic church), and works to better society.

 

[MiddleBear]

Amen. The responsibility is personal and undeniable.

You are not obligated to vote for big government, wasteful and in effective programs that are proposed in the name of “helping the poor”.

Also keep inmind that Socialism is Marxism and as such is against God (atheistic).

 

[Al_Masetti]

Generally speaking, in a democratic society following economic principles of free market economics, people are free to accept or reject. Generally, there is a high degree of economic prosperity. People can choose their economic and social paths.

In a socialist state, there is a strong degree of coercion, limited freedom of choice (or none at all), and very strong influences of “political correctness”. Economic prosperity in socialism is limited. Regimentation seems to prevail. Bureaucracy reigns supreme. There may be high levels of unemployment.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Originally Posted by Texas Roofer
Because free markets are designed to allow equal people to compete and reap rewards. When certain segments cannot compete effectively you have serious problems; which are reduced by minimum wage

Actually, minimum wage has just the opposite effect – the less skilled and educated are prohibited from competing.

This is because their wages are artificially set higher than the economic value of their labor – so jobs disappear (like gas station attendent), go overseas to lower wage workers (like the garment industry) or are filled by the labor blackmarket (illegal aliens.)

This is a supply side theory which only addresses supply and thus the inaccuracy. Because the suppliers (low wage employees) are also the demander (purchaser of goods) the theory assigns a zero value to this factor. If you look you will find an economic boost accompanies practically every US minimum wage increase.